Normally, something as big and loud as a rock concert amphitheater would take months of public back and forth to win approval. That's why it's all the more amazing that the America's Cup and Live Nation landed permission for a 9,000-seat venue on San Francisco's waterfront without a single commission vote or hearing.

America's Cup organizers originally had permission to build a 4,000-seat amphitheater on Piers 27-29 for opening and closing ceremonies and other events connected to this year's sailboat-racing competition.

But in March, after the America's Cup hit rough financial waters, the Board of Supervisors approved a package of changes that didn't need to go through the usual public review.

Among them was permission to more than double the amphitheater's size to 9,000 seats and allow as many as 40 concerts there during the racing season.

There was a brief reference at a single board hearing about expanding the amphitheater, but no mention of the planned concerts.

"The first I heard about it was when I read in the paper that Sting was going to be playing," said Supervisor John Avalos, who voted for the package.

To be fair, there were a number of other issues about the races that were taking up the supervisors' attention at the time - like the collapse of the $100 million-plus rehab deal for Piers 30-32 and questions about how the city was going to come up with $34 million to host the event.

Board of Supervisors President David Chiu- whose district includes the amphitheater site - said he had told organizers of America's Cup-related activities to meet with the neighbors.

"And I was told they were going to do it," Chiu said.

Golinger, however, said his politically powerful Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association hadn't been told about the amphitheater expansion - or the concerts - until after they were a done deal.

"We were definitely surprised," Golinger said. "As a neighborhood we play host to a lot of tourist events, but no one was expecting 40 Fourth of Julys."

America's Cup head Stephen Barclayhas since begun meeting personally with the Dwellers.

"We want to make sure we present something that will work for everyone," Barclay said.

"It's already been approved by the city, so there really isn't much for us to do except work on how loud or how long the concerts will go," said Jocelyn Kane, the commission's executive director.

"That may not be the rational way to do things, but remember, this is government," Kane said. "We'll work through it."

Behind the ride: Even with multimillion-dollar surpluses reported over the past three years, BART is raising fares by 5.2 percent to help cover the system's ballooning health care and pension costs.

Health care costs have soared 31 percent in the past six years, from $35 million to $50.8 million projected this year.

During the same period, pension costs have climbed more than 24 percent - from $43.7 million to $57.8 million.

BART's 3,000 workers put no money into their pension fund and pay just a fraction toward health costs - $92 a month, and going up. BART picks up most of the tab.

On the other hand, BART employees haven't had a raise in four years. Talks for a new contract are just getting under way.

And "at the same time, we have some very pressing capital needs," said BART board President Tom Radulovich. "We have to balance those, and that's going to be the tension over the next year."

By the way, in a presentation to the board, BART's staff said the fare increases are intended to keep up with inflation - making no reference to health and pension costs that are rising far faster than inflation.

BART spokeswoman Alicia Trostacknowledged that the agency's public comments have been focused on explaining that "if passengers want BART to maintain its 95 percent on-time performance rate, we need to continue to invest in our system" - a signal that the money was needed for new train cars and other service improvements.

Did BART intentionally avoid talking about higher worker costs, which might not be as well-received?